I wonder how long until Brown is deemed a RINO. He ran as a moderate and a much better campaign. He focused on topics people cared about, listened and was elected as the "people's candidate." If he wants to be re-elected in 2012 he is going to find it hard to toe the line as is expected in the current Republican party.

General Elections are rarely about party...they are about the person running. If you look at 2006 where Democrats won in conservative districts you will find they ran the better candidate. By better I mean one that connected with the voters and ran a better campaign. I am not saying dissatisfaction is irrelevant but often the media and pols often discount the persons running and focus just on the party.

I think that with the Brown election- it's obvious that independents want essentially the same thing as progressives - change. People are upset at what is going on in this country- and Obama and the democrats said they were going to change things and they have only sold us out to corporate America even more. If Obama continues down the path he has been on of selling us all out he is going to have a difficult time winning in 2012. I know I certainly won't be voting or campaigning for him unless he starts acting more like the candidate Obama. I think that what you saw in Mass (and will likely see in coming elections) is that the progressive democrats are staying home.

It's interesting because if the teabaggers had any actual critical thinking skills they would realize that what they actually want is in many ways similar to what progressives want- that is for the government to stop selling us out to big corporations. If it wasn't for partisan hacks like the entire fox news group pushing the republican agenda - perhaps the time would be right for actual third party gains. The problem is that regardless of whether it is democrat or republicans in charge- the result is always the same.

"Reagan would not be a true conservative? Really? Actually, he usually didn't work with the Democrats. He despised them"

IP: Wow.... that's great.... a president who despised half of the country! I'm stationed in Japan and I don't think ANY service member want's a president that despises us. Here at MC Air Station Iwakuni many of my fellow Marines are African American, Latino, Asian and a few are white too, and we really like Obama.

Reagan despised the liberal Democrats in Congress and the people that hated on him in the media. Apparently you missed my part about how he spoke directly to the American people, because he knows in his heart that every man is good and what is right will always prevail. And apparently you forgot about the so-called Reagan Democrats. Reagan won over such Democrats because he took the correct stances on issues that most Americans stand for (which turn out to be conservative issues - beefing up defense, cutting taxes) and was an effective leader and had a way of talking to the people that brought them on to that side, for the betterment of America. And of course you like your President if you're in the military. He's your commander-in-chief. Servicemen liked Bush just as much. I think Obama is a nice guy too and like I said earlier in this thread, I want him to succeed because I want our country to succeed. But he is not succeeding right now and his policies are leading us down a disastrous path.

Originally posted by Brocktoon

I wonder how long until Brown is deemed a RINO. He ran as a moderate and a much better campaign. He focused on topics people cared about, listened and was elected as the "people's candidate." If he wants to be re-elected in 2012 he is going to find it hard to toe the line as is expected in the current Republican party.

General Elections are rarely about party...they are about the person running. If you look at 2006 where Democrats won in conservative districts you will find they ran the better candidate. By better I mean one that connected with the voters and ran a better campaign. I am not saying dissatisfaction is irrelevant but often the media and pols often discount the persons running and focus just on the party.

Brown did not run as a moderate. He ran primarily on cutting taxes, cutting federal spending, killing the health care bill, and fighting terrorism. Those are all conservative stances and predominantly what conservatives have been about for the last quarter century. It just turns out that this is what the vast majority of people want right now, because people have seen that liberal policies have failed in an epic manner. He didn't say he was going to be wishy-washy and work with the Democrats in Congress. No, he said he was going to drive that pickup into Washington and work for the people of his state. He's going to be that 41st vote to kill healthcare and erase the Democrats' supermajority.

...which turn out to be conservative issues - beefing up defense, cutting taxes) and was an effective leader and had a way of talking to the people that brought them on to that side, for the betterment of America.

Reagan was absolutely a great communicator - perhaps the second best of the last century (after FDR).

However, I think you may be viewing the 80's through some rose-colored glasses. "Beefing up defense" while simultaneously "cutting taxes" are two VERY easy things to do politically. Going to war can sometimes cause political problems, but simply doling out cash (regardless of what it is spent on) while not asking anyone to pay for it is something that the vast majority of voters can get behind (for more proof of this, see the California proposition system). Eventually, the bills come due.

I think you're also vastly underestimating the role that the Fed had in fixing the economy from 79-82, which allowed the 80's expansion. Many folks today (mostly on the right) would like to significantly curtail the autonomy of the Fed - and it's exactly that autonomy that allowed Volcker to kill stagflation in the early 80's. I'm not sure that the autonomy is all that real any more (the Greenspan years saw the Fed growing closer and closer to the Treasury, and it's drifted even closer since then), but I certainly maintain that having a central bank controlled by politicians is just about the most dangerous thing on the planet - be thankful that Carter and Reagan's White Houses didn't have much influence on Volcker, or we might never have come out of the 70's malaise.

Brown did not run as a moderate. He ran primarily on cutting taxes, cutting federal spending, killing the health care bill, and fighting terrorism. Those are all conservative stances and predominantly what conservatives have been about for the last quarter century.

Fighting terrorism is a conservative stance? There's absolutely no validity to that. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many people of any political background who don't support the nebulous concept of "fighting terrorism". However, waging wars to fight extremist Islamic terrorism in countries where it didn't exist (read: Iraq) prior to the start of aforementioned war is one that you and your conservative brethren can claim. Also, the general evisceration of the Constitution in the name of "fighting terrorism" is another one you might lay claim to... we can thank "conservatives" for that most Patriotic of Acts. (Real conservatives like Ron Paul notwithstanding... but we won't go into that here)

Also, dude is not a conservative. Sorry. Anyone running statewide in Mass with an R next to their name is not a conservative. He is marginally pro-choice, voted for cap-and-trade AND the state's massive health care reform, among other things. If he shows even a hint of the teabaggy lunacy we've seen from Jim DeMint, Tom Coburn or his other "conservative" counterparts in the Senate, he can kiss new job goodbye come 2012. I personally think he's a little smarter than that and he's likely to be as moderate as NE Republicans traditionally have been in the Senate.

Reagan won over such Democrats because he took the correct stances on issues that most Americans stand for (which turn out to be conservative issues - beefing up defense, cutting taxes) and was an effective leader and had a way of talking to the people that brought them on to that side, for the betterment of America...
...Brown did not run as a moderate. He ran primarily on cutting taxes, cutting federal spending, killing the health care bill, and fighting terrorism. Those are all conservative stances and predominantly what conservatives have been about for the last quarter century.

For the record, being tough on defense, cutting taxes, and taming wasteful spending have been the campaign pledges of every national candidate forever. These aren't uniquely "conservative" ideals, they are empty promises... when was the last time you heard a candidate talk about a weak military, high taxes, and a ton of federal earmarks? And before you make some joke about liberals, realize that Bill Clinton is the only president in most of our lifetimes that balanced a federal budget.

As someone that has been subjected to the MA Senate campaign ad naseum for the last three weeks, let's clarify that Scott Brown is a moderate Republican, just as Mitt Romney was a moderate Repbulican. The campaign hardly touched on bedrock conservative issues, because they don't play in the northeast (especially MA). Brown's appeal was about his personality and Martha Coakley's lack thereof, as well as healthcare. The working class base of the MA Democratic party opposes the the national healthcare reform because most of them already have healthcare. It had almost nothing to do with "conservatism." People are fed up with Washington, fed up with the economy, fed up with cost of sending their kids to college... they're just fed up. Under these conditions, the candidate with the broadest appeal wins. Corzine in NJ and Coakley in MA couldn't escape the label of aloof, establishment candidates, so they lost. 2012 will be much of the same-- assuming the economy is still terrible, the election will be about who seems more understanding of the plight of regular Americans. Certainly, as this 12-month political 180 shows, it's not about party values.

Fighting terrorism is a conservative stance? There's absolutely no validity to that. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many people of any political background who don't support the nebulous concept of "fighting terrorism". However, waging wars to fight extremist Islamic terrorism in countries where it didn't exist (read: Iraq) prior to the start of aforementioned war is one that you and your conservative brethren can claim. Also, the general evisceration of the Constitution in the name of "fighting terrorism" is another one you might lay claim to... we can thank "conservatives" for that most Patriotic of Acts. (Real conservatives like Ron Paul notwithstanding... but we won't go into that here)

Also, dude is not a conservative. Sorry. Anyone running statewide in Mass with an R next to their name is not a conservative. He is marginally pro-choice, voted for cap-and-trade AND the state's massive health care reform, among other things. If he shows even a hint of the teabaggy lunacy we've seen from Jim DeMint, Tom Coburn or his other "conservative" counterparts in the Senate, he can kiss new job goodbye come 2012. I personally think he's a little smarter than that and he's likely to be as moderate as NE Republicans traditionally have been in the Senate.

Fighting terrorism is a conservative stance because conservatives are the only ones that acutally take it seriously. Once you start pussyfooting around with being concerned about the civil rights of terrorists and not going after ruthless dictators or fighting the enemy wherever they may be, you aren't serious about fighting terrorism anymore. Brown vehmently opposes using taxpayer dollars to fund lawyers and trials for the Gitmo terrorists in wartime and would rather we spend that money on weaponry to kill the terrorists at their source.

And actually Brown is a conservative. He ran as one and will likely legislate as one. Because conservatives are the only ones who take seriously the issues people care about...cutting taxes, killing terrorists, cutting federal spending, not initiating overarching Socialist healthcare bills. He doesn't want to be another Ted Kennedy, so he isn't concerned if he loses his seat eventually. He just wants to get the job done and go home. He talked about how he believes in term limits in a press conference today.

Originally posted by PrahaSMC

For the record, being tough on defense, cutting taxes, and taming wasteful spending have been the campaign pledges of every national candidate forever. These aren't uniquely "conservative" ideals, they are empty promises... when was the last time you heard a candidate talk about a weak military, high taxes, and a ton of federal earmarks? And before you make some joke about liberals, realize that Bill Clinton is the only president in most of our lifetimes that balanced a federal budget.

As someone that has been subjected to the MA Senate campaign ad naseum for the last three weeks, let's clarify that Scott Brown is a moderate Republican, just as Mitt Romney was a moderate Repbulican. The campaign hardly touched on bedrock conservative issues, because they don't play in the northeast (especially MA). Brown's appeal was about his personality and Martha Coakley's lack thereof, as well as healthcare. The working class base of the MA Democratic party opposes the the national healthcare reform because most of them already have healthcare. It had almost nothing to do with "conservatism." People are fed up with Washington, fed up with the economy, fed up with cost of sending their kids to college... they're just fed up. Under these conditions, the candidate with the broadest appeal wins. Corzine in NJ and Coakley in MA couldn't escape the label of aloof, establishment candidates, so they lost. 2012 will be much of the same-- assuming the economy is still terrible, the election will be about who seems more understanding of the plight of regular Americans. Certainly, as this 12-month political 180 shows, it's not about party values.

They are not empty promises. Were the tax cut checks Americans received under Bush empty promises? Was Bill Clinton giving into Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress in the 1990s so that they could cut wasteful spending and balance the budget an empty promise? Is killing 60,000 terrorists in the War on Terror an empty promise? No, they are not. They are conservative ideas initiated by conservative Republicans concerned with the economic and national security of our country.

And sure, personalities were involved, as they are in all campaigns. But the primary issues that Brown focused on...killing healthcare, cutting spending, cutting taxes, and beefing up national security, are all conservative ideas and are things that actually work, and that's why he was elected. People gave Obama and the Dems a chance, and it's been a train-wreck since the Dems took over Congress in 2006. No wonder the 180-turnaround.

Please refer to the tag line below this post I'm still trying to find this movie for $5 at the local Walmart Bin But I'd have to say the administration in that movie is pretty liberal

Is this our future?

Terry Alan Crews plays President Camacho, a spandex-clad bird-flipper whose Chief Executive qualifications include being a professional wrestler/porno star

This fictional character is just as "down to earth" as the ex governor of Alaska

I doubt a lot of the posters in this thread were even old enough to really remember all the negotiations that took place between Tip O'niel and the republicans of the time! Before you dispute this, bills did get passed and Reagan did sign them:

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 - lowered income tax rates
Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 - revoked some provisions of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981
Social Security Amendments of 1983 - amended Social Security to adjust for new retirees
1984 Expansion of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 - tightened federal standards for the disposal of toxic waste and extends controls to small companies[7]
Tax Reform Act of 1986 - simplified the income tax code, broaden the tax base and eliminate many tax shelters and other preferences
Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986 - sweeping change to the Department of Defense command structure
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 - granted amnesty to illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously

But apparently not 78 vetoed bills....ha ha ha....

As for this thread....I absolutely refuse to participate until 2012 snicker.....

Last edited by The One; 20 Jan 2010 at 5:47 PM.

“The way of acquiescence leads to moral and spiritual suicide. The way of violence leads to bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers. But, the way of non-violence leads to redemption and the creation of the beloved community.”
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
- See more at: http://www.thekingcenter.org/king-ph....r7W02j3S.dpuf

Killing health care! What a great idea! You conservatives and your novel approaches to fixing our broken health care system.

Universal health insurance! What a great idea! You progressives and your feeble attempts at framing something as being broken for over a century only to offer the same, tired default "approach" to fix it that serves your political ideologies more than it would actually fix problems!

Universal health insurance! What a great idea! You progressives and your feeble attempts at framing something as being broken for over a century only to offer the same, tired default "approach" to fix it that serves your political ideologies more than it would actually fix problems!

... ducks and runs (although I admit I may be back later)

Haha. I actually somewhat agree with you here. The only problem is, the bill(s) in Congress wouldn't achieve universal coverage at all. I'd advocate for a system like they have in France (horrors!) over the milquetoast turd they're tossing around in DC.

However, we have to do something, esp. about denying coverage to those with "preexisting conditions". That ain't right.

When you say things like this is makes most thinking people not take you seriously. That's the same probloem that Palin has. Apparantly you both live in a made up fantasy world.

I'm just calling it like I see it. When I see Obama moving Gitmo to Thomson, IL and my Democratic governor welcoming it with open arms, and I hear liberals calling for the terrorists' civil rights, and I see them ordering them trials, and banishing waterboarding because they think it's torture despite how effective it was at foiling many plots, and I see blunders like the Christmas Day attempted plane bombing due to lax security under this administration, I think all of it supports my assessment of which side takes fighting terrorism more seriously.

He doesn't want to be another Ted Kennedy, so he isn't concerned if he loses his seat eventually. He just wants to get the job done and go home. He talked about how he believes in term limits in a press conference today.

It would be awful to have another Ted Kennedy....

I don't think that anyone goes into Politics today without hoping that they can stay there forever and make easy money doing very little while getting the best benefits and healthcare coverage money can buy for free. Talk all you want about term limits, but the house or senate will never change those rules. What motivation do they have? I think you are doing a very fine job of keeping on the conservative talking points, but honestly he is a moderate. Those in Massachusetts are saying he ran as a moderate. Why argue the point with people who were involved in the voting? I seriously doubt Fox News or MSNBC for that matter are telling those of us in other states the whole story of who Scott Brown is. I would guess we will find out in the next year... or sooner.

A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

They are not empty promises. Were the tax cut checks Americans received under Bush empty promises?

I can't let this one go.

Yes. In fact, cutting taxes while running up an unprecedented national debt is, by definition, an empty promise at best. At worst, it's dishonest and disingenuous gamesmanship-- refusing to confront the massive deficit he himself created, while making a short-sighted political calculation to give "tax relief," costing future generations billions in interest and debt service.

Apparently the Supreme Court just shot down a great deal of McCain-Feingold and other previous bills that limited corporations' ability to finance political campaigns, opening the doors wide open for corporations, unions, and non-political groups to open up their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. Elections are going to start getting much more interesting...

Apparently the Supreme Court just shot down a great deal of McCain-Feingold and other previous bills that limited corporations' ability to finance political campaigns, opening the doors wide open for corporations, unions, and non-political groups to open up their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. Elections are going to start getting much more interesting...

Apparently the Supreme Court just shot down a great deal of McCain-Feingold and other previous bills that limited corporations' ability to finance political campaigns, opening the doors wide open for corporations, unions, and non-political groups to open up their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. Elections are going to start getting much more interesting...

Oh, I don't know... the United States had existed for 200 years before serious, enforceable legislation limited corporate campaign contributions passed Congress in the 1970's. Not necessarily saying I agree or disagree with it - just saying it's probably not the end of the world or anything (and slightly playing devil's advocate ).

I'm all for free speech, but the gap between the haves and have-nots will now get even worse. Capitalism has now been replaced by corporatism.

I beg to differ on that, as under the now shot-down rules, you were pretty much shut out of running an effective campaign for office unless you had a personal fortune that was big enough to allow for you to 'self-finance'. THUS, we got the likes of John Corzine, the Kennedys and our own unaccountable (because NOBODY could ever hope to legitimately raise enough cash to effectively run against his own personal fortune) USSenator Herb Kohl.

I don't think that anyone goes into Politics today without hoping that they can stay there forever and make easy money doing very little while getting the best benefits and healthcare coverage money can buy for free. Talk all you want about term limits, but the house or senate will never change those rules. What motivation do they have? I think you are doing a very fine job of keeping on the conservative talking points, but honestly he is a moderate. Those in Massachusetts are saying he ran as a moderate. Why argue the point with people who were involved in the voting? I seriously doubt Fox News or MSNBC for that matter are telling those of us in other states the whole story of who Scott Brown is. I would guess we will find out in the next year... or sooner.

He himself said he will impose term limits on himself. He doesn't want to stay there very long. And the primary issues he said he focused on, and said so himself, which I have mentioned in this thread several times now, are all conservative ways of thinking. Also, look at his record on a number of issues: He supports waterboarding, he supports the death penalty, he is against partial birth abortions and believes in parental consent, he is completely against the Democrats' health care bill, he is opposed to higher taxes, he believes gay marriage should be left up to the states. Sorry, but to me, that's a Republican. Except for a few things, he is largely a conservative Republican. An independent conservative if you will. I think when I say that, you all think he's way far right, which isn't true. He's probably center-right, like most Republicans are, and like the country as a whole is. But he's certainly not right smack-dab in the center.

Originally posted by PrahaSMC

I can't let this one go.

Yes. In fact, cutting taxes while running up an unprecedented national debt is, by definition, an empty promise at best. At worst, it's dishonest and disingenuous gamesmanship-- refusing to confront the massive deficit he himself created, while making a short-sighted political calculation to give "tax relief," costing future generations billions in interest and debt service.

It's not an empty promise. He cut taxes, which stimulated the economy, and created jobs, giving our country some of the lowest unemployment numbers we've ever seen. Bush's problem was that he didn't cut spending to counter that and nobody did anything about subprime lending. Additionally, once liberals took over Congress in 2006, it made it harder for Bush to continue that economic progress, a stalemate which led to the economic disaster we now have.

And fighting terrorism most certainly is a conservative value, at least if you take it seriously. Liberals don't take it seriously enough, with their positions on waterboarding, Gitmo, defense spending, trials for terrorists, establishing timetables for withdrawl, and so forth.

I think that will all depend on the economy and also whether Obama and the Democrats choose to work with Republicans and work for the American people or whether they choose to continue to ram through the healthcare bill that nobody wants and other reckless behavior such as having closed-doors meetings about important issues.

I will agree that the healthcare bill that is more than likely DOA was a turd. The thing that kills me is hearing members of the GOP looking at healthcare and other issues as a political football. Many in the GOP would rather see Obama fail than to give any real input into the issues. Obama tried to reach across the aisle, only to see the Republicans slam the door in his face. It's sad that many in the GOP are using this strategy instead of holding true political discourse. When you have members of Congress saying they will oppose anything the Dems propose instead of trying to offer real solutions and work out a compromise, that is just pathetic.

My hope is that Obama will actually be given a chance, but I am not sure the Republicans will ever do that. I heard someone my parents know say "I don't care if Obama found a cure for cancer, I still wouldn't like that S.O.B." Granted this person is not the most enlightened when it comes to the issues, (she sends e-mails with "evidence" that Obama is a Muslim or not a real Citizen ) but she is not the only person I have heard this garbage from.

I still have high hopes for Obama. I am a bit upset to see he hasn't acted on DOMA or Don't Ask Don't Tell, but my hope is he can also work on some of these "easier" issues while tackling the economic issues. As much as we need healthcare reform in this country, the stars just aren't aligned at this point. A lot of that has to do with misinformation campaigns this summer (Palin and the Death Panels) and the outright refusal for the Republicans in Congress to have an honest discussion.

The only positive thing I see in this is the GOP finally stepping anyway from many of the social issues that began to ostrocize the party from many moderates. During the last 20 years, many in the GOP forgot the idea of majority rule also includes minority rights (right to choose, LGBT issues, etc.). Although it wouldn't surprise me to see the GOP pick up this torch in 2012 if they run out of issues to talk about.

Oh, I don't know... the United States had existed for 200 years before serious, enforceable legislation limited corporate campaign contributions passed Congress in the 1970's. Not necessarily saying I agree or disagree with it - just saying it's probably not the end of the world or anything (and slightly playing devil's advocate ).

Sure, but there have probably been an order of magnitude more policies beneficial to corporate interests passed in the last 30 years than in the entire 200 before that (from both D's and R's). The general power and influence of corporations today is far above that of any other time - and I'm meaning specifically nameless/faceless corporations without any one person's skin in the game - there were obviously some ridiculously wealthy and powerful folks in the late 1800's/early 1900's, but A. we dealt with that through antitrust legislation and B. there was at least a person at the top of those firms that could be "shamed" if nothing else.